The best new estimate, based on actual video of the gusher, seems to be 70,000 Barrels per Day (+/- 20% or 56,000 to 84,000).

That's FOURTEEN TIMES worse than the previous estimate.

To put it another way: it is about 2.9 Million Gallons per Day -- it is already been bigger in the first week than the Exxon Valdez...

The other two estimates also based on the actual video of the oil/...gas spill range between 20,000 Barrels and 100,000 barrels a day, and at least 50,000 barrels.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

My go to spot for reading about Oil issues is http://www.theoildrum.com/

The current thread about NPR piece you posted is http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6464

Overview of the BP spill for new readers is http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6463

Who would have thought drilling for poison in 5000 feet of water would be so tough?

Dont worry tho- good ol' "amoco" will change its name again to escape most of the costs of clean up by merging under a new oil moniker. (just like it did when it became part of BP)

i think that bp is only liable for $75 million of the cost? we have to pick up the tab for everything over that??

disgusting.

That's an interesting number, where did you get it from.? I think I have the answer below.

I cant find the news article right now, but the estimates from BP a few days ago were $400 million and rising fast, simply because the government has the legal right (currently) to pay most of the costs (ridiculous penalty for getting into bed with oil and its lobbyists). This of course will be changed very quickly (and rightly so), so all of the costs can (and will be) passed onto BP and co.

What will come is how it should always have been, the reason why people are throwing around that tiny figure of $75 million is below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... er-horizon

"The spill claims are currently capped by legislation at $75m – a legacy of the Exxon Valdez tanker grounding"

No one disagrees that BP and the other parties should pay every cent that it will cost to clear up this mess, refund losses for tourism and fishing and everything else that has an associated cost. What people don't seem to be talking about as much as I would have hoped is how to stop this happening again, and remove the legislation totally, no more "caps" on fines for oil companies.


Andy

The US should take over BP after it goes bankrupt from paying the cost of cleanup, and start a nonprofit oil company that's not controlled by a toxic lust for profit.

if the u.s. government actually does remove the $75 million cap, and make it retro-active, so that bp has to pay for all of the crap it created in the gulf, the other oil companies will not hesitate to pay for the proper safeguards to help prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

not that any safeguard can be guaranteed, of course.

That could happen I suppose, but lets face it, its not likely to happen.



Why not simply skip the entire problem of oil, and increase the amount of power generated and supplied to the end users by other means, whilst reducing the amount of power that people use, and what types are used, that would be the only sensible long term option.



My point exactly, let them know that there is no upper limit at all, they will think twice in the future.


Andy

This is pretty much what I had heard from BP via the BBC news channel a day or so back.



Highlighted bit done by me BTW.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8684912.stm


Andy

We should have been doing that long before the embargo in '73.

If we could figure in all the long term environmental and other real costs of using oil onto the big oils ledger books, and also tax them appropriately, gasoline would be over 25$ a gallon and the "alternatives" would quickly become the norm.

Drill baby drill!

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6470

Late on Friday night BP began to try inserting a narrow pipe into the remnant of the riser lying on the sea bed at the site of the Deepwater Horizon site in the Gulf of Mexico.

The tool is fashioned from a 4-inch pipe and is inserted into the leaking riser, from which the majority of the flow is coming. While not collecting all of the leaking oil, this tool is an important step in reducing the amount of oil being released into Gulf waters. The procedure - never attempted before at such depths - involves inserting a 5-foot length of the specifically-designed tool into the end of the existing, damaged riser from where the oil and gas is leaking. In a procedure approved by federal agencies and the Federal On Scene Coordinator, methanol will also be flowed into the riser to help prevent the formation of gas crystals, known as hydrates. Gas and oil will then flow to the surface to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship.

The tool was successfully reinserted May 16th.



Huge oil plumes lurk in deep waters:

Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, three miles wide and 300 feet thick.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100516/AP/705169893

OIL PLUMES

A New York Times report on Saturday said scientists had found huge oil plumes in the Gulf, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick.

It said the discovery provided evidence that the leak could be "substantially worse" than estimates given previously by the government and BP.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1521453720100516

I agree. Who on earth would pass that sort of law?

If they remove it and make it retroactive, surely the other oil companies will end up having to pay for all their past issues too?!

Are chemical dispersants doing more harm than good?

maybe we should just nuke the spill...

There are apparently gigantic plumes of oil *under* the surface, and some of this oil may well be close to the Florida Keys and it will likely come around to the East Coast.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126870185

It's a 4 inch pipe in a 21 inch pipe, and it's a mile long -- how much oil can they capture? And there is a second leak that this will not affect -- so, if you define "success" as slightly less horrible...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126852086

They are saying it is capturing ~1,000 barrels /day with is only 1/5th of what they say is spewing -- but it is less than 1/70th of what is probably actually jetting out of the pipe. And of course, there is a second leak...

Thanks for the link, truly an excellent "get up to speed" resource.

177 photos at Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/3 ... 58287.html

Zombies are protesting as well.

Look at Picture 21



Those in the US would probably have heard about a "relief well" being drilled, not heard about that until I saw in mentioned on one of those pictures, any ideas on how thats going to work out.?


Andy

When the spill hits the loop current, Fl and the east coast will be screwed.

The idea is that a second well drilled near the wellhead of the leaking pipe will reduce the pressure oof the liquid escaping the at the leak. Ideally the relief well will siphon the oil from the mouth of the broken well.

How well it will work is anyone's guess.

I like the story about the software engineer who claims that nuking the wellhead will cause the entire Southeast US to sink into the Gulf. Part of me wants to see him proven wrong... another part wants him to be right.

The relief well won't be done until August at the earliest -- that is a mere 3 1/2 months away. At 70,000 barrels / day minus the 1000 barrels / day they are siphoning off with the 4" pipette that leaves 69,000 barrels or 2,898,000 GALLONS PER DAY flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Oh, and tarballs have reached Key West...

according to newsweek, bp has apparently been the largest supplier of fuel and such(?) to the u.s. government war effort, or something to that effect... i can't find the link to the story, i read it on paper, if when you do see the article, it'll make your blood boil, guaranteed.

A relief well is supposed to intersect the original well just above the reservoir, cement is then injected into the original well to plug it.
It's pretty difficult to do, intersecting a 7" diameter steel pipe at depths in excess of 10,000'

Blow outs are a known hazard of oil well drilling - numerous safeguards are in place to prevent a blowout occurring but nothing is 100% is it. Planes crash, accidents happen. If people want oil so badly that they will drill in such extreme conditions, they must be prepared to take the risks involved. Drilling in such a depth of water would not have been possible 10 years ago, technically or economically - it's really cutting edge and unproven tech so perhaps, given the catastrophic consequences of a blow out it shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place.
Who issued the drilling licenses? The US government, Obama changed his mind a few months ago I think and gave the go ahead for more offshore exploration. Now they do not want to take any of the blame. Typical.

^^
Drilling in 5000 feet is still obviously not feasible, and should remain that way until humans can work at that depth.




Maybe we can harness the heat from all that boiling blood to generate some green energy?

Not from the BP spill, though.

Yes, I just heard the report saying that these are not from the BP spill, you're right. So, we will have to wait for more evidence of the oil getting into the so-called loop current. There was a science ship that said they have detected oil in the loop current, but as of yet, this is unconfirmed.

This is a common misconception (I thought the same thing before a few days ago) but relief wells don't actually relieve pressure. I'll quote someone from theoildrum who knows more about this than I.


Knowing what the "relief" well really does it's surprising to me they don't call it something else.

Here are two dictionary definitions that show how confusing the term is

(civil engineering) A well that drains a pervious stratum, to relieve waterlogging at the surface.

(petroleum engineering) A directional well which is drilled to intersect a well that is blowing out, and down which heavy drilling fluid is pumped to kill the blow-out well.

Kind of hard to see why they chose to reuse the term when the usage is so widely different.

60 Minutes - BP disaster - Deepwater Horizon survivor Mike Williams

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0onXmlFgF8I
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N58oCgl9j2c
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfzPod_jSh8
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkuWuicFJE

The 1st hand account from the survivor is pretty amazing - I'd love to see/hear the un-edited interview.

A bit sensational in parts, but not as bad as I expected from the MSM.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126975907

The leak from the second hole (in the so-called blowout preventer) is ~25,000 barrels per day -- 5X more than the original number all by itself.

The total from the two biggest gushers is ~100,000 barrels per day or 4,200,000 gallons per day.